9 ms·

Not at all. When you get a loan, the bank creates a liability and deposit out of thin air. The deposit is a "demand deposit", which is effectively equivalent a

by qnt 4y ago

Not at all. When you get a loan, the bank creates a liability and deposit out of thin air. The deposit is a "demand deposit", which is effectively equivalent and fungible to central-bank-backed currency (hence the term "money" usually applies to both, though they are different things). The bank needs no existing customer deposits to create a demand deposit and liability in your account. You should run through your example again, except begin by creating a loan, rather than first beginning by a customer lending the bank a deposit. The BoE article linked above is absolutely correct.

dools 4y ago
Always good to find another MMTer out in the wild ;)
- unmole 4y ago
  This has absolutely nothing to do with MMT.
  - dools 4y ago
    MMT economists have been instrumental in dispelling many of the popular misunderstandings about how banking works in addition to their work dispelling the many popular misunderstandings about how government finance works. But also qnt is clearly well versed in MMT which is what I was referring to.
baobabKoodaa 4y ago
You claim that the bank needs no existing customer deposits to create a demand deposit and liability in your account. This claim is true only in the pedantic sense: if the bank is otherwise capitalized (e.g. money from investors in the bank), then it could create loans using whatever money it has, as opposed to using money specifically from depositors. However, what you probably meant is that a bank could loan out money even if it has $0 money in the bank. This is not true at all. A bank can not loan out money if it has no money. It has no printing presses that print physical banknotes, and other banks would refuse electronic transfers from a bank which is known to have $0 money. Furthermore, it's not clear to me how you believe that the BoE article contradicts what I'm saying. I'm under the impression that you (along with most other people) are simply misunderstanding what you are reading here.
- dools 4y ago
  Can you describe how a bank uses money that it has to originate loans? EDIT: note that this paragraph (and the one preceding it) directly contradicts what you are saying: This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out. A related misconception is that banks can lend out their reserves. Reserves can only be lent between banks, since consumers do not have access to reserves accounts at the Bank of England.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    One thing that should raise an obvious flag is that if the bank lends your bank account balance, why isn't it telling you that you cannot withdraw or spend it? After all, that money is supposed to be in your or someone else's bank account! It can't be in both simultaneously. The only conclusion is that your bank account isn't actually your money but a bank's promise to pay you money and those promises are obviously created by the bank. The only confusion is over whether highly regulated promises that people use in their day to day activity as money substitute can be considered money or not. The classic "bank takes your deposit and lends it out" only applies to certificates of deposit, after all, you have no access to that money. You can't transfer or withdraw it until the agreed date.
  - baobabKoodaa 4y ago
    > Can you describe how a bank uses money that it has to originate loans? Yes. If I take a loan out of a bank in physical banknotes, then the bank physically loses the amount of banknotes that I physically receive. Physical banknotes are not duplicated. If I take out 100 euros in physical banknotes, then the bank loses the corresponding 100 euros in physical banknotes. The bank does not magically create physical banknotes out of thin air. If I take a loan out of a bank in the form of electronic transfer to another bank, then usually one of 2 things happen: 1. The receiving bank requires the sending bank to settle all transfers that occurred throughout a timespan such as 1 day, by transferring reserves held at the central bank. For example, if the net outflow from bank A to bank B is +2M, then bank B would require bank A to transfer 2M of reserves to settle the transfers. Note that also in this case bank A loses the amount of money that it lent to me. Money wasn't duplicated. It was transferred out of the bank. or 2. The receiving bank B has looked through the books of sending bank A, they have a prior relationship, and bank B provides an unsecured loan to bank A. Note that if bank A actually had 0 money anywhere, then bank B wouldn't want to provide bank A an unsecured loan. In this case bank A does not lose physical banknotes, and does not lose reserves held at the central bank, but they still have to record the unsecured loan. In an accounting sense, they didn't magically gain "free money" by providing a loan to their customer. > This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out I believe this is referring to the creation of the accounting entry. It's true in the most pedantic sense, which is incredibly misleading and unhelpful. Yes, when you type a number into a computer, you can type any number. If I were to open a business where I operate like a bank, taking deposits from people and loaning money to people, and I were to keep a ledger of how much money each person has at their "accounts" with me, I could type any number I want in that ledger. Let's say I type in "9999999999999 dollars". Sure, why not. If your argument is that one can type in any number they want on a computer, then that's true, but it's not a useful argument to make. Do you think that a bank which has NO MONEY is able to (in a practical sense) create infinite money out of thin air? Sure it can type "9999999999999 dollars" on a computer, but that wouldn't be "real money" in any practical sense, because you wouldn't be able to exchange it for goods and services. Follow-up question: if you genuinely believe this to be possible, then why isn't anybody doing that? Surely there are many people working at banks who would like to collude with their friends and family to create infinite money. If you believe that to be possible, why has it literally never happened?
colinmhayes 4y ago
You are wrong. Without existing deposits the bank has no money to loan out. They can write numbers on screens, but eventually the money they loaned out will be transferred and the bank that it was transferred to will ask for settlement.
- qnt 4y ago
  That's exactly the point - money is just numbers on screens. there is no money to loan out. the act of lending creates the money. - Bank starts with $0 capitalisation or deposits - Customer goes to bank and asks for $1 loan - Bank believes customer is creditworthy and says yep - Bank creates two accounts for customer, loan account and deposit account. Loan account is -$1 and deposit account is $1 - customer transfers $1 from their deposit account to someone else's account at a different bank in exchange for goods/services - customer account at the bank is now loan account -$1 and deposit account $0 - Customer eventually needs a way to get $1 back from somewhere else to pay the loan back, else face bankruptcy proceedings etc etc Commercial banks all agree with each other that they accept each other's demand deposit accounts as a form of money.
  - baobabKoodaa 4y ago
    > - Bank starts with $0 capitalisation or deposits - Customer goes to bank and asks for $1 loan - Bank believes customer is creditworthy and says yep No bank starts out with $0 capitalisation and then makes up money along the way. This has never happened. > Commercial banks all agree with each other that they accept each other's demand deposit accounts as a form of money. This is not true either. If a bank is known to have no capital, other banks will refuse to accept transfers from it without immediate settlement.

by qnt 4y ago

dools 4y ago

Always good to find another MMTer out in the wild ;)

unmole 4y ago
This has absolutely nothing to do with MMT.
- dools 4y ago
  MMT economists have been instrumental in dispelling many of the popular misunderstandings about how banking works in addition to their work dispelling the many popular misunderstandings about how government finance works. But also qnt is clearly well versed in MMT which is what I was referring to.

baobabKoodaa 4y ago

You claim that the bank needs no existing customer deposits to create a demand deposit and liability in your account. This claim is true only in the pedantic sense: if the bank is otherwise capitalized (e.g. money from investors in the bank), then it could create loans using whatever money it has, as opposed to using money specifically from depositors. However, what you probably meant is that a bank could loan out money even if it has $0 money in the bank. This is not true at all. A bank can not loan out money if it has no money. It has no printing presses that print physical banknotes, and other banks would refuse electronic transfers from a bank which is known to have $0 money. Furthermore, it's not clear to me how you believe that the BoE article contradicts what I'm saying. I'm under the impression that you (along with most other people) are simply misunderstanding what you are reading here.

dools 4y ago
Can you describe how a bank uses money that it has to originate loans? EDIT: note that this paragraph (and the one preceding it) directly contradicts what you are saying: This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out. A related misconception is that banks can lend out their reserves. Reserves can only be lent between banks, since consumers do not have access to reserves accounts at the Bank of England.
- imtringued 4y ago
  One thing that should raise an obvious flag is that if the bank lends your bank account balance, why isn't it telling you that you cannot withdraw or spend it? After all, that money is supposed to be in your or someone else's bank account! It can't be in both simultaneously. The only conclusion is that your bank account isn't actually your money but a bank's promise to pay you money and those promises are obviously created by the bank. The only confusion is over whether highly regulated promises that people use in their day to day activity as money substitute can be considered money or not. The classic "bank takes your deposit and lends it out" only applies to certificates of deposit, after all, you have no access to that money. You can't transfer or withdraw it until the agreed date.
- baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  > Can you describe how a bank uses money that it has to originate loans? Yes. If I take a loan out of a bank in physical banknotes, then the bank physically loses the amount of banknotes that I physically receive. Physical banknotes are not duplicated. If I take out 100 euros in physical banknotes, then the bank loses the corresponding 100 euros in physical banknotes. The bank does not magically create physical banknotes out of thin air. If I take a loan out of a bank in the form of electronic transfer to another bank, then usually one of 2 things happen: 1. The receiving bank requires the sending bank to settle all transfers that occurred throughout a timespan such as 1 day, by transferring reserves held at the central bank. For example, if the net outflow from bank A to bank B is +2M, then bank B would require bank A to transfer 2M of reserves to settle the transfers. Note that also in this case bank A loses the amount of money that it lent to me. Money wasn't duplicated. It was transferred out of the bank. or 2. The receiving bank B has looked through the books of sending bank A, they have a prior relationship, and bank B provides an unsecured loan to bank A. Note that if bank A actually had 0 money anywhere, then bank B wouldn't want to provide bank A an unsecured loan. In this case bank A does not lose physical banknotes, and does not lose reserves held at the central bank, but they still have to record the unsecured loan. In an accounting sense, they didn't magically gain "free money" by providing a loan to their customer. > This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out I believe this is referring to the creation of the accounting entry. It's true in the most pedantic sense, which is incredibly misleading and unhelpful. Yes, when you type a number into a computer, you can type any number. If I were to open a business where I operate like a bank, taking deposits from people and loaning money to people, and I were to keep a ledger of how much money each person has at their "accounts" with me, I could type any number I want in that ledger. Let's say I type in "9999999999999 dollars". Sure, why not. If your argument is that one can type in any number they want on a computer, then that's true, but it's not a useful argument to make. Do you think that a bank which has NO MONEY is able to (in a practical sense) create infinite money out of thin air? Sure it can type "9999999999999 dollars" on a computer, but that wouldn't be "real money" in any practical sense, because you wouldn't be able to exchange it for goods and services. Follow-up question: if you genuinely believe this to be possible, then why isn't anybody doing that? Surely there are many people working at banks who would like to collude with their friends and family to create infinite money. If you believe that to be possible, why has it literally never happened?

colinmhayes 4y ago

You are wrong. Without existing deposits the bank has no money to loan out. They can write numbers on screens, but eventually the money they loaned out will be transferred and the bank that it was transferred to will ask for settlement.

qnt 4y ago
That's exactly the point - money is just numbers on screens. there is no money to loan out. the act of lending creates the money. - Bank starts with $0 capitalisation or deposits - Customer goes to bank and asks for $1 loan - Bank believes customer is creditworthy and says yep - Bank creates two accounts for customer, loan account and deposit account. Loan account is -$1 and deposit account is $1 - customer transfers $1 from their deposit account to someone else's account at a different bank in exchange for goods/services - customer account at the bank is now loan account -$1 and deposit account $0 - Customer eventually needs a way to get $1 back from somewhere else to pay the loan back, else face bankruptcy proceedings etc etc Commercial banks all agree with each other that they accept each other's demand deposit accounts as a form of money.
- baobabKoodaa 4y ago
  > - Bank starts with $0 capitalisation or deposits - Customer goes to bank and asks for $1 loan - Bank believes customer is creditworthy and says yep No bank starts out with $0 capitalisation and then makes up money along the way. This has never happened. > Commercial banks all agree with each other that they accept each other's demand deposit accounts as a form of money. This is not true either. If a bank is known to have no capital, other banks will refuse to accept transfers from it without immediate settlement.